[gtld-tech] Whether registrars have to implement a RDAP service

[gtheo]

This crossed my mind also.

Thanks

Theo Geurts

Realtime Register B.V.


Michele Neylon - Blacknight schreef op 2015-12-08 12:21 PM:
> Why on earth would we go the expense of implementing this if it’s:
> - temporary
> - we can’t use proper ACLs etc., due to gaps in the ICANN policy
> 
> 
> --
> Mr Michele Neylon
> Blacknight Solutions
> Hosting, Colocation & Domains
> http://www.blacknight.host/
> http://blog.blacknight.com/
> http://ceo.hosting/
> Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
> Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
> -------------------------------
> Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business 
> Park,Sleaty
> Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 07/12/2015, 9:42 p.m., "gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
> Roger D Carney" <gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
> rcarney at godaddy.com> wrote:
> 
>> Good Afternoon,
>> 
>> Thanks Francisco for providing some great context around each of these 
>> updates.
>> 
>> I believe the wording in 3.1.1 will cause some confusion with the 
>> intent of this update in 2.3, with 3.1.1 stating all sponsored names 
>> whereas the intent being only thin sponsored names.
>> 
>> Additionally, I would like to confirm that according to the wording in 
>> this latest draft, ICANN is suggesting that all Registrars sponsoring 
>> names in any thin registry will be obligated to create and manage code 
>> and infrastructure for a temporary RDAP server implementation that 
>> will be rendered useless and most likely be discarded once the three 
>> remaining thin TLDs are moved to thick?
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Roger
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces at icann.org] 
>> On Behalf Of Francisco Arias
>> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 4:57 PM
>> To: gtld-tech at icann.org
>> Subject: [gtld-tech] Whether registrars have to implement a RDAP 
>> service
>> 
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> Regarding open issue I.3 Whether registrars have to implement a RDAP 
>> service.
>> 
>> In section 2.3 of v12 we say that registrars MUST offer RDAP service 
>> for all "thin registrations” that they sponsor. There appears to be no 
>> benefit in requiring registrars to offer RDAP service for a thick 
>> registration.
>> Please note that the requirements is regarding individual 
>> registrations as opposed to TLD-wise. We included a definition for 
>> “thin registration”.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> --
>> Francisco.
>>